You can't exclaim that an "If" argument isn't cogent, and then pose one yourself. I do not believe you got Krakauer's message in 'Banner.' On its face, the work concerns itself with the investigation into Fundamentalist Mormonism. You got that part. The nuances and grander detail, which you seem to have missed, is precisely the relationship between modern governments and the social pacts therein with faith and religion.

Exactly how does one address these two brothers killing a woman and her child when they both profess that God told them to commit the act? The answer from a jurisprudence stance is obvious; but there are other, more salient questions to ask than that. Namely, why do you see those who see morality through a fundamentally religious lens any different than those seeing it through other types? Is there one you see as perfect and right, while others found lacking? You just came out of an argument of objectivity, so I am curious to get the skinny on this one.

You characterize morality to be "twisted and convoluted," but in terms of enigmatic, I would take 10 grand laws over the law of man any day of the week. Whether your "convoluted" pertains to a specific group or not, I am not sure, but the question posed is which part of other paradigms of morality are any less convoluted?